Rating and Stats

Document Actions

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Description: This special report from the Progress & Freedom Foundation -- "Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace" -- provides an objective snapshot of the health of America's media land...

This special report from the Progress & Freedom Foundation -- "Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace" -- provides an objective snapshot of the health of America's media landscape. It examines the issue both from the perspective of consumer welfare and the health of various media industry sectors. This is version 1.0 of the report. Occasional updates will be made available at www.pff.org.

For the most recent version of this report, please visit: www.pff.org/mediametrics

PFF Special Report

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA, 94105, USA.

C. Things Are Getting Better All the Time, But … ............................................................................... 11

II.
A. B.

The Big Picture.................................................................................13
A Layered Media Model of Analysis................................................................................................ 14 Death of Scarcity, Rise of Abundance ............................................................................................ 16

Print (Newspapers & Magazines)....................................................67
Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 3

Progress & Freedom Foundation

A. B.

The Decline of the Daily Paper ....................................................................................................... 67 Magazine and Book Diversity.......................................................................................................... 76

— Author’s Note — This special report is intended to be a living document. The Progress & Freedom Foundation will continue to publish occasional updates (available online at www.pff.org/mediametrics) to capture ongoing media developments and marketplace trends. We encourage readers to send us suggestions regarding updates or information that could be included in subsequent editions of this report. Also, this report is not primarily about the public policies governing America’s media marketplace, although it certainly has some ramifications for those laws and regulations. Those issues were dealt with in another PFF book, Media Myths: Making Sense of the Debate over Media Ownership. 1

I. Introduction
It seems as if everyone is a media critic these days. Many people—including a large number of legislators and regulators—argue that America’s media marketplace is in a miserable state. Some claim that citizens lack choice in media outlets and that options are just as scarce as ever. Others believe that media “localism” is dead or that many groups or niches go underserved because of a lack of true “diversity” in media. Others argue that the market is hopelessly over-concentrated in the hands of a few evil media barons who are hell-bent on force-feeding us corporate propaganda. And still others say that the quality of news and entertainment in our society has deteriorated because of a combination of all of the above. It all sounds quite troubling, but is any of it true? The problem with much of the criticism leveled at the modern media marketplace is that it is based almost entirely on emotion, not evidence. Critics are fond of using a variety of subjective barometers to gauge the health of the media. That’s hardly surprising because many of us feel strongly about media. The media touch our lives in a variety of important ways. They inform and inspire on one hand; they shock and repulse us on the other. Unsurprisingly, therefore, everyone fancies himself or herself a bit of an armchair critic when it comes to the media.

A. The Need for Objective Measures
Indeed, everybody has an axe to grind with the media for one reason or another, and that attitude has probably been the case throughout our nation’s history. “The first accusation of press bias surely flew the day the first newspaper was published,” notes press critic and Slate editor-at-large Jack Shafer. 2 And political scientist Mary Stuckey has argued, “Public discourse about the media tends toward the apocalyptic, and the media are convenient scapegoats for the myriad ills that are thought to assail us.” 3 Thus, media criticism is often based in large part on the sociopolitical objectives of a wide variety of media critics who want to reshape the marketplace according to some preferred alternative vision. Consequently, media regulation—in the form of structural ownership rules, market limitations, licensing or “localism” requirements, speech restrictions or mandates, and so on—provides the means for critics to exert control over the media, or to reshape the media marketplace in their preferred image. This explains the bipartisan support that such media regulations have gained in different
2

quarters, as well as why many critics now want to expand those rules to cover new media outlets and technologies. It also explains why many critics concoct creative market metrics—or contort traditional measures—to serve their own ends and justify such “regulatory creep.” Evaluating the state of the media marketplace is difficult for another reason, however: many of the traditional metrics used to gauge the health of the media marketplace are open to interpretation, or those measures have been challenged by radical changes within the marketplace. As The State of the News Media 2007 report bemoaned, “With audiences splintering across ever more platforms, nearly every metric for measuring audience is now under challenge as either flawed or obsolete—from circulation in print, to ratings in TV, to page views and unique visitors online.” 4 And Diane Mermigas of Media Post argues that we presently lack “a universal form of media measurement.” 5 “For now,” she says, the “digital transition is in a purgatory that has media hanging between the conventional estimates of who is watching and reading and the evolving online click accountability. Until all media flows through a digital filter, a compelling universal standard of measurement is not possible. In fact, it is challenging to lay various forms of media measurement side by side to achieve a broader multiplatform performance snapshot.” 6 No doubt, there is some truth to these assertions. But that doesn’t mean we are without any effective metrics for gauging either the health of the modern media marketplace or what it offers citizens. In fact, America’s media marketplace is probably one of the most thoroughly surveyed and studied parts of our modern economy and culture. A wealth of reliable information exists that provides us with detailed information about who is watching, listening, or reading and when, where, and how we use all the diverse options on the stuffed media menu from which we choose content today. And those metrics can be combined to create the sort of “broader multi-platform performance snapshot” that Mermigas alludes to.

B. The Media Cornucopia
Taken together, these metrics paint an amazing picture—and one that is quite different from what most critics suggest. Indeed, we are blessed to live in amazing times. Throughout most of history, humans lived in a state of extreme information poverty. News traveled slowly, field to field, village to village. Even with the printing press’s advent, information spread at a snail’s pace. Few knew how to find printed materials, assuming that they even knew how to read. Today, by contrast, we live in a world of unprecedented media abundance that, not long ago, was only the stuff of
T

4

The State of News Media 2007: An Annual Report on the American Journalism, Project for Excellence in Journalism, p. 4, www.stateofthenewsmedia.com/2007/narrative_overview_intro.asp?cat=1&media=1 5 Diane Mermigas, “Until Media Flows Digitally, Unity Metrics Impossible,” Media Post, June 27, 2008, http://blogs.mediapost.com/on_media/?p=204 6 Ibid. Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 10

Progress & Freedom Foundation

science-fiction novels. We can increasingly obtain and consume whatever media we want, wherever and whenever we want. In this new environment, media—taken as a whole—is becoming hyperubiquitous; an all-consuming and tremendously pervasive presence in our daily lives. Speaking at a college graduation in May 2005, Christian Science Monitor’s managing publisher Stephen T. Gray put it this way: “The media saturate your lives far more than any previous generation…. Today’s information environment [is] omnipresent, like the air we breathe.” 7 Patrick Phillips, the creator of “I Want Media,” a website devoted to collecting each day’s top headlines about the state of media in America, uses a similar metaphor. In today’s media environment, “News is like running water,” he says. 8 Finally, Clay Shirky, author of Here Comes Everybody, puts the transformation were are witnessing in a historical perspective: We are living in the middle of the largest increase in expressive capability in the history of the human race. More people can communicate more things to more people than has ever been possible in the past, and the size and speed of this increase, from under one million participants to over one billion in a generation, makes the change unprecedented, even considered against the background of previous revolutions in communications tools. 9 From the perspective of the individual citizen, therefore, things are getting better all the time. We have more media choice, more media competition, and more media diversity. Indeed, after evaluating the metrics and evidence presented in this report, an unmistakable conclusion emerges: To the extent there was ever a “golden age” of media in America, we are living in it today. The media sky has never been brighter and it is getting brighter with each passing year—at least for the reader, viewer, or listener.

C. Things Are Getting Better All the Time, But …
From the perspective of many media providers, however, the metrics presented here tell a somewhat different story: increased competition and technological proliferation are placing an enormous strain on traditional media operations and
7

Stephen T. Gray, “Where the Media End and You Begin,” Graduation Address at Adrian College, May 1, 2005, www.csmonitor.com/2005/0509/p09s01-coop.html 8 Quoted in: Marc Glaser, “I Want Media Site Awash in Digital News,” MediaShift.com, May 2, 2006, www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/05/digging_deeperi_want_media_sit.html. Similarly, Roy Greenslade of the U.K. Business Telegraph argues, “Indeed, it’s fair to say that news is ambient nowadays. It can be transmitted so quickly and so comprehensively by a variety of media that everyone seems to hear about major events in no time at all. Whether they understand all the complexities, or even care to, is another matter.” Roy Greenslade, “Make Way for the Internet Revolution,” Business Telegraph, http://business.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2005/10/25/ccroy25.xml&menuId=242& sSheet=/money/2005/10/25/ixcoms.html 9 Clay Shirky, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations (New York: The Penguin Press, 2008), p. 106. Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 11

Progress & Freedom Foundation

business models. In one sense, it’s tempting to say, “So what?” After all, isn’t that all just a sign of a healthy marketplace with plenty of Schumpeterian “creative destruction” at work? Indeed, there’s a lot of that going on, and it’s an entirely natural and healthy phenomenon. But there’s a lot of regulating still going on as well. America’s media marketplace remains subject to a wide variety of regulations—ownership caps, market limitations, “localism” requirements, and other “public interest” mandates. These regulations limit the ability of media operators to respond to the rapidly changing market environment. If all market players were equally hobbled by regulation, perhaps this issue would be less problematic. But these rules are applied in a remarkably arbitrary fashion, with some sectors and firms (over-the-air broadcasters, in particular) being singled out for harsher regulatory treatment than others. More worrisome for traditional operators is that an entirely new media sector has emerged over the past decade—online / digital media—with countless new players who are both unregulated and well-funded. Again, this new competition and innovation are a welcome, pro-consumer development, but their presence raises fairness questions about the uneven playing field that now exists between traditional media operators and new media providers. Consequently, we shouldn’t take the positive media changes we have witnessed for granted. If some media providers disappear because public policy has limited their ability to respond to new marketplace challenges, consumers could be left less well off. Lawmakers should ensure that public policy does not artificially handicap certain operators or tilt the playing field in one direction unnaturally. More generally, as media policy debates continue, our policymakers must decide whether these investigations will be governed by facts or fanaticism; by evidence or emotionalism. The hyperbolic rhetoric, shameless fear-mongering, and unsubstantiated claims that have increasingly driven media policy debates in recent years have no foundation in reality and should be rejected. The media metrics presented in this report offer us a chance to reframe the discussion about media policy and to base it on substantive evidence about the true state of America’s media marketplace.

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 12

Progress & Freedom Foundation

II. The Big Picture
If one is to examine the state of the media marketplace, it helps to have an analytic model to frame the discussion. Generally speaking, the simplest barometer of the health of our media marketplace is to ask the clichéd political question: “Are you better off today than you (or your parents) were X years ago?” A number of objective metrics can be used to answer that question. The “Layered Media Model” shown below helps break the media marketplace into discreet units that can be studied and quantified.

Exhibit 1: A “Layered Media Model” to Analyze the State of the Media Marketplace

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 13

Progress & Freedom Foundation

A. A Layered Media Model of Analysis
In the 1980s, Michael Porter of the Harvard Business School developed several useful analytical tools to evaluate the state of industries and markets. In addition to his “5-Factor Competitive Forces” model, Porter also devised what is known as “value chain” (firm-level) and “value system” (industry-wide) forms of market analysis. 10 Those tools allow business students and market analysts to think about how firms or industry sectors compete, innovate, and create value. They help us unpack the individual elements of a company or an industry and then determine the current status of those components. If one borrows some of the concepts Porter set forth in those models, a media value chain model can be constructed and used to analyze the health of the overall media marketplace, as well as individual media sectors. The “4-Layer Media Model” seen above offers a useful way to evaluate the state of the media marketplace from one era to the next. Bu using this model, breaking it down into four major components or layers, we can examine how the media marketplace has changed over the past few decades. The four layers used here are: Layer 1: Product or content options: Who creates media content? What media content is available for citizens to consume? Layer 2: Distribution mechanisms: Who delivers media content? How is it distributed to the viewing and listening public? Layer 3: Receiving or display devices: How is media content received (seen and heard) by consumers? Layer 4: Personal storage options: How do citizens retain media content? Using these layers, we can analyze what the media marketplace looked like in a sample year, say 1970, compared with today:

In each layer for 2008, we find that the public has more options at its disposal. In the product or content layer, we see more types of media content are being produced than ever before. The old analog world of media scarcity has given way to a digital media cornucopia of unprecedented abundance. Likewise, the second layer of the value chain shows that the number of distribution paths or delivery mechanisms to the home has expanded considerably. Among the platforms or tools now at our disposal are computers, the Internet, P2P, blogs, video games, mobile devices, satellite radio, iPods, and much more, including even more of the old print, TV, and radio sources. And in the third layer, the number and nature of receiving and display devices used by consumers have changed dramatically since the days of black-and-white TVs, transistor radios, and black rotary-dial telephones. Digital developments and technologies have empowered citizens to consume media wherever, whenever, and however they wish. Finally, a look at the fourth layer illustrates how many more personal storage options citizens have today. In the past, it was virtually impossible for citizens to store their media for extended periods of time (with the possible exception of personal book and album or tape collections). Today, by contrast, every type of media content can be stored and then consumed at our leisure wherever we find ourselves in this world. The subsequent chapters of this report will offer a variety of metrics to illustrate the growth of each layer of the model.

B. Death of Scarcity, Rise of Abundance
Some critics like to wax nostalgic about a supposed golden age of media when the citizenry was supposedly far better informed and more engaged in deliberative democracy. But that’s wishful thinking at best and revisionist history at worst. The fact is, we are far better informed as a citizenry today than were our ancestors. As Richard Saul Wurman, author of Information Anxiety, has noted, “A weekday edition of the New York Times contains more information than the average person was likely to come across in a lifetime in seventeenth-century England.” 11 And a 1987 report by Susan
11

Richard Saul Wurman, Information Anxiety (New York: Doubleday, 1989), p. 32. Francis Heylighen of the Free University of Brussels puts this media abundance or overload into a historical context: “During most of history, information was a scarce resource that was of the greatest value to the small elite that had access to it. Enormous effort would be spent in copying and transferring the little data available, with armies of monks toiling years in the copying by hand of the few available books, and armies of couriers relaying messages from one part of the kingdom to another. Nowadays, it rather seems that we get much more information than we desire, as we are inundated by an ever growing amount of email messages, internal reports, faxes, phone calls, newspapers, magazine articles, webpages, TV broadcasts, and radio programs.” Francis Heylighen, “Complexity and Information Overload in Society: Why Increasing Efficiency Leads to Decreasing Control,” draft paper, April 12, 2002, pp. 12-13, Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 16

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Hubbard estimated that more new information has been produced within the previous 30 years than in the past 5,000. 12 To put things in perspective, in 1900, the average newspaper had only 8 pages, according to Benjamin Compaine, co-author of Who Owns the Media? 13 In 2000, by contrast, according to the Encarta encyclopedia, “Daily general-circulation newspapers average[d] about 65 pages during the week and more than 200 pages in the weekend edition.” 14 Part of the reason we are better informed, quite obviously, is simply because we have access to more media services and technologies with each passing year.

Exhibit 3: The Rapid Diffusion of Media Technology

Not only are more and more devices available each year, but new media and communications technologies are also spreading throughout society faster with each
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/Info-Overload.pdf. Similarly, Richard Saul Wurman argues, “Access to information was once highly controlled. You had to have enough money to afford a book and an education, as well as time enough to read. Now anyone can acquire information.” Wurman, p. 13. 12 Susan Hubbard, in Carol Collier Kuhlthau, ed., Information Skills for an Information Society: A Review of Research (Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources, December 1987). 13 Benjamin M. Compaine, “The Newspaper Industry,” in Benjamin M. Compaine and Douglas Gomery, eds., Who Owns the Media? Competition and Concentration in the Mass Media Industry (Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3rd Edition, 2000), p. 7. 14 Encarta, http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564853/Newspaper.html Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 17

Progress & Freedom Foundation

passing year. The newer the technology, the more rapidly people are getting it. This is likely due to several factors, including (a) the growing affluence of the American citizenry; (b) many media and communications technologies that are built on previous media and communications networks and innovations; and (c) competition and innovation that are rapidly bringing down the prices of media and communications technologies and services while increasing their capabilities and capacities.

Exhibit 4: New Technologies Reaching Citizens More Rapidly

Exhibit 5: Prices of Major Media Technologies Continue to Fall

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 18

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Return to our value chain analysis and imagine traveling back in time and trying to explain these changes to the average citizen of 1970. It would be difficult to even put these technologies and developments into words and concepts they could understand so that they could fully appreciate these radical new media content, delivery, consumption, and storage options. How would one explain the Internet, blogging, search engines, social networking, iPods, or TiVo? These technologies have ushered in truly revolutionary changes.

C. Advertising Trends
Another important change in the media marketplace deals with advertising. The importance of advertising to media companies cannot be overstated. “Advertising is the mother’s milk of all the mass media,” Wall Street Journal technology columnist Walt Mossberg has noted. 15 And Harold L. Vogel, author of Entertainment Industry Economics, the definitive textbook for media market analysts, has noted, “Advertising is the key common ingredient in the tactics and strategies of all entertainment and media company business models. Indeed, it might further be said that advertising has substantively subsidized the production and delivery of news and entertainment throughout the last century.” 16 Mossberg agrees and notes, “Without ads, most editorial products and other programming would be either unavailable or prohibitively expensive.” 17 More specifically, without ad-supported business models, media operators must rely on either (a) subscription fees and, when possible, direct sales or (b) “charity” in the form of private philanthropy or government subsidies. But, with the exception of “high culture” (opera and art museums, for example) and non-commercial media (NPR, PBS), most media products and operations in the United States do not rely on philanthropy or government subsidies. Consequently, media operators are stuck trying to devise business models that use some combination of subscription fees and direct sales alongside advertising.

Thus, economists classify most media sectors as “two-sided markets”; most media operators serve two different sets of “customers”: users (or subscribers) and advertisers. 18 For some media providers, however one side of the market— subscribers—cannot be monetized easily, if at all. For example, at least in the U.S., no one has ever come up with a good way to charge users for broadcast “over-the-air” television or radio programming. 19 Instead, broadcast services are provided freely to local communities and supported entirely by ads. Similarly, on the other end of the media spectrum, no search engine provider or blogger would succeed very long if he or she tried to charge people per search or per article read. With the exception of a few high-end or niche media products that can command user fees, advertising is the dominant means of sustaining online media.

18

For background, see: Jean-Charles Rochet and Jean Tirole, “Two-Sided Markets: An Overview,” March 12, 2004, http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/hermalin/rochet_tirole.pdf. Also see Roberto Roson, “TwoSided Markets: A Tentative Survey,” Review of Network Economics, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, pp. 142-60. 19 In United Kingdom, however, the government enforces licensing fees (charged per television set) to help fund public broadcasting. Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 20

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Exhibit 7: Online Advertising Growing Rapidly Relative to Old Media

This reality explains why media companies compete so vigorously for advertising dollars; they don’t want to be forced to raise prices for users or subscribers, assuming it’s even possible to monetize their user base. The problem of “price stickiness” exacerbates this problem: content providers find it especially difficult to begin charging for content once it, or similar content, has been offered free of charge. And this also explains why advertising competition in the modern media marketplace is more heated than ever before. In the past age of truly “mass” media, operators could reach a very broad audience. Newspapers and broadcasters benefited from “protectable scarcity”: they had few substitutes, limited competition and, therefore, consumers had fewer places to shift their attention.

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 21

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Exhibit 8: Internet Advertising on the Rise

Today, however, “the concept of mass media has ended,” notes Cathy Taylor of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. 20 She makes it clear why the “demassification” of media will have profound implications for advertising markets and the traditional economics that have governed this industry: What was once a matter of big media companies handing out content when and where it was most advantageous has morphed into a lengthy menu of à la carte options, with consumers deciding when, where and how they see, hear or read their selections. For users of media, this opening of the floodgates may well create information and entertainment nirvana. But, for advertisers, what was once the fairly easy job of planning and buying across a handful of options has turned into a Rubik’s Cube of twisting and turning possibilities. 21 Those “twisting and turning possibilities” for advertisers have been documented by media analyst Jack Myers: There are new media alternatives virtually every day and ad budgets are splintering into micro-fragments. Advertisers are being pulled in multiple
20

Cathy Taylor, “The State of Advertising,” in The State of the News Media 2008: An Annual Report on American Journalism, Project for Excellence in Journalism, Journalism.org, www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2008/narrative_special_advertising.php?cat=0&media=13 21 Ibid. Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 22

Progress & Freedom Foundation

directions. Dollars are seeping from traditional budgets into search engine marketing, event marketing, cause-related marketing, merchandising, experiential marketing, location-based marketing, public relations, conversational and word-of-mouth marketing, social and mobile media, and consumer and trade sales promotion. 22 Because it is now much easier for advertisers to move their ad dollars around, it is becoming much more difficult for traditional media operators to find sustained support for their creative endeavors—especially the expensive task of producing quality journalism. As Myers notes: “Advertising is simply not a sufficient revenue model to sustain content companies into the long-term future. For the foreseeable future, the pool of available advertising dollars will be stagnant,” because “unfortunately, the ‘tried-andtrue’ no longer can be relied on to deliver steady growth.” 23 Of course, historically, there has always been a certain degree of fungibility or substitutability among media outlets. Advertising support has flowed from one media segment to another. 24 Today, however, such ad substitution is occurring at a breakneck pace in America’s increasingly dynamic media marketplace. In particular, advertising dollars are flowing away from traditional media outlets (broadcasting and newspapers, in particular) and toward new media platforms (cable TV, the Internet, search providers, social networking sites, etc.) at an increasingly rapid pace. This excerpt from the New York Times Co.’s 2006 Annual Report is telling in that regard: [C]ompetition has intensified as a result of digital media technologies. Distribution of news, entertainment and other information over the Internet, as well as through cellular phones and other devices, continues to increase in popularity. These technological developments are increasing the number of media choices available to advertisers and audiences. As media audiences fragment, we expect advertisers to allocate a portion of their advertising budgets to nontraditional media, such as Web sites and
22

Jack Myers, “Why Digital Media Investments are Under-Performing and How to Improve Their Value,” Jack Myers Think Tank, June 3, 2008, www.jackmyers.com/commentary/media-businessreport/19456909.html 23 Ibid. Myers further explains why advertising competition is putting such a strain on traditional media operators: “Traditional mass media had the advantage of delivering rifle-like silver bullets to millions of consumers simultaneously- a Gatling gun affect. Today, media sellers, marketers and their agencies -- both traditional and emerging -- still seek to replicate those mass-media models, but the affect is more comparable to weakened short-range shotgun pellets. Advanced targeting tools such as behavioral, contextual and conceptual targeting are not advancing the state-of-theadvertising-art, but rather are being used to justify the further spreading of ad messages across a digital landscape of thousands even hundreds of thousands – of websites and blogs.” 24 Economists refer to this as “multi-homing.” “Multi-homing by advertisers and consumers is prevalent in the media sector. Advertisers may use a variety of different media for an advertising campaign in order to achieve the required impact and over time may switch their expenditure significantly from one set of media to another.” John Wotton, “Are Media Markets Analyzed as Two-Sided Markets?” Competition Policy International, Vol. 3, No. 1, Spring 2007, p. 238. Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 23

Progress & Freedom Foundation

search engines, which can offer more measurable returns than traditional print media through pay-for-performance and keyword-targeted advertising. 25 Statistics make it clear that the implications of these changes will be profound and will likely forever reshape America’s media marketplace. It’s clear that new media technologies and operators are increasingly eating away at traditional media’s advertising revenue streams. In recent years, advertising dollars have been flowing away traditional media outlets (broadcasting and newspapers) and toward cable TV and the Internet. Although traditional media outlets still garner more advertising dollars, they are quickly losing those dollars to new media players. According to McCann Erickson Worldwide, over the past 4 years, Internet advertising has been growing between 20% and 34% per year whereas broadcast TV and radio ad revenues have stagnated, and thus newspaper advertising has been falling rapidly. And the situation isn’t going to get any better for traditional media operators as more and more new media options and outlets develop. Internet ad spending in the United States is predicted to keep growing at a strong pace, as is social networking advertising. Expand the target audience a little more to worldwide Internet ad spending, and the projections are even more astounding.

Exhibit 9: Social Network Advertising Set to Grow Rapidly

25

New York Times Co., 2006 Annual Report, p. 10, www.nytco.com/pdf/annual_2006/2006NYTannual.pdf Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 24

D. Investment and Financial Trends
The heated competition in the advertising marketplace is also reflected in the rapidly falling fortunes of traditional media operators. The hard truth for those operators is that investors are increasingly diverting their money to new, largely unregulated, media operators and are abandoning traditional media operators, who remain heavily regulated. Thus, traditional advertising-supported media companies are facing three ominous developments or threats that call into question their long-term viability: (a) Loss of consumer confidence and allegiance; (b) loss of advertiser confidence and allegiance; and, (c) loss of investor confidence and allegiance as a result of (a) & (b). To see what that change has meant in the investment marketplace, consider that as of the second week of January 2008, just 6 major new technology companies (Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, eBay, Amazon, and Apple) had a collective market capitalization of $830 billion, which was 30% higher than the aggregate market cap of over 50 of the most venerable names in traditional media. 26

26

The chart uses three financial metrics that Wall Street analysts commonly employ to gauge the health of media operators: Enterprise value/revenue is plotted on the x axis. Revenues are plotted on the y axis. And the size of each company’s bubble on the chart is determined by its market capitalization. Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 25

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Exhibit 11: Old vs. New Media Market Caps

This is not a pretty picture for traditional media operators, and in most ways the news continues to grow worse with each passing day. While some traditional media operators continue to attract a respectable level of investment and revenues, most are struggling to keep up with new players like Google, Apple and Microsoft. Importantly, as shown in the highlighted circle on the lower left of the chart, there are 42 major media operators that individually have less than $20 billion in revenues (most have far less than that) and most of which also have market caps that look like rounding errors on a Microsoft or Google financial statement. If we are to get a better feel for the magnitude of this crisis for some traditional media operators, let’s compare just Google with two major media sectors: newspapers and radio. Google is slaughtering those sectors right now by stealing away both the attention of consumers and the allegiance of advertisers, so it’s a worthwhile comparison. As the next two exhibits make clear, this situation is resulting in lost investor confidence in traditional operators in those media sectors.

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 26

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Exhibit 12: Newspaper Industry Market Caps vs. Google

Exhibit 13: Radio Industry Market Caps vs. Google

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 27

Progress & Freedom Foundation

For newspapers, 14 of the leading operators in the United States—including New York Times Co., Washington Post Co., Gannett, Belo, and McClatchy—have a combined market cap of roughly $29 billion, which is just 15% of Google’s whopping $189 billion market cap as of January 18. Only a few of those traditional newspaper operators cross the $1 billion threshold, and the largest, Gannett, has revenues of $7.8 billion, roughly half of what Google is pulling in. Adding News Corp. to the total (since they own the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post) helps bring the newspaper sector totals up a bit because Rupert Murdoch’s company has a $60 billion market cap. But much of that value is derived from other properties in his media stable, including a TV network, broadcast stations, cable channels, satellite operations, and MySpace.com. Thus, it’s probably not fair to include a diversified company like News Corp. in the newspaper grouping. The situation for broadcast radio operators is equally bleak. The industry’s 10 leading providers have a combined market cap of $36 billion, just 19% of Google’s. And as will be shown in the section on radio that follows, broadcast radio operators are losing listeners and advertisers at an alarming rate. The broadcast radio sector is on the brink of a veritable doomsday scenario with satellite radio, non-commercial radio, iPods, digital downloads, Internet radio, cell phones, and other audio options eating away at their marketplace hegemony. In fact, satellite radio operators XM and Sirius have higher market caps than every radio broadcaster except for Clear Channel and CBS. And XM and Sirius haven’t even turned a profit yet! Thus, traditional radio broadcasters are in real trouble. So, let’s frame the dilemma for traditional media operators by asking the question this way: Exactly how many old media companies would you need to stack on top of one another to equal the value of Google and a handful of other technology or new media companies? The answer is, quite a few! As of January 2008, Google, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo!, Amazon.com, and eBay had an aggregate market cap of $830 billion. That is a stunning number, and old media operators simply cannot come close to equaling it today. Indeed, as the table below shows, if one adds together the market caps of 54 of the leading traditional media operations in America and stacks them against those of the 6 new tech companies previously listed above, you get only 70% of the way there at just $565 billion. Stated differently, as of mid-January 2008, just 6 major “new media” operators (Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, eBay, Amazon, and Apple) had a collective market capitalization that was 30% higher than the aggregate market cap of 54 of the most venerable names in traditional media. This is a stunning reversal of fortunes. And while much has happened in the market since these numbers were first captured, the story remains largely the same today. To sum up the financial situation: Traditional media operators are struggling in the face of new competitive challenges. They have been hemorrhaging consumers and ad dollars. And as all those eyes, ears and ad dollars migrate to new technology
Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 28

Progress & Freedom Foundation

operators and media platforms, investors are following. That change means less market confidence and less market capital for traditional media operators. What makes this situation even more troubling for many of these providers is that, as stated previously, they have their hands tied by regulation and are unable to respond to these competitive threats in an effort to stop the bleeding. Various ownership restrictions, market limitations, speech controls, and other meddlesome rules, encumber the ability of traditional operators to structure their business affairs as they wish to respond to the new marketplace threats. The result is an even greater loss of investor confidence. Why invest your money in a traditional media operator that is shackled with regulatory constraints when the new kids on the block are well funded and almost completely unregulated? The ramifications of these developments are profound for another reason. These “new media operators” such as Google and Yahoo! aren’t really media operators in the traditional sense of the word. To be more specific, they are not media creators; they are really just media aggregators and distributors. As digital visionary Jaron Lanier has noted: In the new [media] environment, Google News is for the moment better funded and enjoys a more secure future than most of the rather small number of fine reporters around the world who ultimately create most of its content. The aggregator is richer than the aggregated. 27 Google officials confirm that fact. In an interview with “I Want Media.com,” David Eun, Google’s Vice President of Content Partnerships said, “we’re not a media company, because we don’t own or produce content. However, we work closely with those who do and work closely with advertisers. Journalists, news bureaus—that’s not what we do.” 28 This is not the place to fully explore the ramifications of that fact, but it is a fact: As the metrics presented here illustrate, the aggregators are indeed now richer than the aggregated. Some media analysts speak in apocalyptic terms about the “unprecedented collapse of newspapers and traditional journalism” 29 and “the demise of journalism itself” 30 because of the tsunami of creative destruction sweeping through the modern media marketplace. It’s probably too soon to render such sweeping judgments, but it begs the question of what might be done to ensure that media diversity and journalistic excellence are not imperiled.

27 28

www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html “David Eun: Google Won’t Become a Media Company,” iWantMedia.com, January 30, 2008, www.iwantmedia.com/people/people70.html 29 Diane Mermigas, “Digital Realities: The Deconstruction or Reconstruction of Journalism?” Diane Mermigas On Media, May 9, 2008, http://blogs.mediapost.com/on_media/?p=166 30 Craig Moffett, “And Now for the News… The Emperor Has No Clothes,” Bernstein Research Weekend Media Blast, May 2, 2008, p. 1. Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 29

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Exhibit 14: Media Valuation Comparisons, January 2008

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 30

Progress & Freedom Foundation

To remedy this situation, we don’t need to resort to draconian solutions along the lines of what some neo-Luddite Internet critics have suggested. 31 That is, we don’t need to restrict competition and entry or to re-create media scarcity in an attempt to resurrect the marketplace of the past. 32 Instead, we just need to ensure that all media operators are on a level playing field and have the ability to respond to competitive threats that aren’t going away. “The uncertainties and dislocations from new technology can be wrenching,” notes L. Gordon Crovitz, the former publisher of the Wall Street Journal, “but genies don’t go back into bottles.” 33

E. The Effect of the Internet and Online Media
As mentioned, the effect of the Internet on the modern media landscape has been enormous, and it continues to revolutionize the way the media marketplace operates. Instead of treating the Internet, online media and user-generated content in isolation in this report, each of the subsequent sections will include a discussion about how they are fundamentally reshaping existing sectors, technologies, or modes of consuming media. Just to provide a flavor for how rapidly the online media market is growing, however, a few amazing statistics are worth highlighting. In April 2007, the blog-tracking service Technorati was tracking over 70 million weblogs. Just one year later, in April 2008, that number was up to 112 million blogs. The site also reports that about 175,000 new weblogs are being created worldwide each day. “Bloggers update their blogs regularly to the tune of over 1.6 million posts per day, or over 18 updates a second,” the site notes. 34

31

Some modern media critics concede that scarcity is indeed a thing of the past, but have suggested that an age of media abundance has many downsides of its own. On one hand, some critics fear the economic consequences of media abundance in that it might threaten revered media enterprises or undermine what “high-quality” media content. Others argue that an over-abundance of media options threatens us in a sociological sense by making it harder for citizens to share common thoughts or feelings. This, they fear, threatens to undermine our sense of community or even democracy itself. In both cases, however, these critics often suggest a great deal more government intervention to somehow rectify the perceived problem. For an extended discussion of these two divergent strands of modern media criticism, see: Adam Thierer, “The Media Cornucopia,” City Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2, Spring 2007, www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_media.html 32 See: Adam Thierer, “Thoughts on Andrew Keen, Part 1: Why an Age of Abundance Really is Better than an Age of Scarcity,” PFF Blog, October 16, 2007, http://blog.pff.org/archives/2007/10/keen_recreate_s.html; Adam Thierer, “Thoughts on Andrew Keen, Part 2: The Dangers of the Stasis Mentality,” PFF Blog, October 16, 2007, http://blog.pff.org/archives/2007/10/thoughts_on_and.html 33 L. Gordon Crovitz, “Optimism and the Digital World,” Wall Street Journal, April 21, 2008, p. A15, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120873501564529841.html?mod=todays_columnists 34 http://technorati.com/about/ Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 31

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Exhibit 15: The Expanding Blogosphere

Social networking sites and user-generated content continue to proliferate rapidly as well. Millions of average Americans are now posting their own content online and sharing with others around the globe. The beauty of modern media technologies such as websites, blogs and social networking services is that they give every man, woman, and child the ability to be a one-person publishing house or broadcaster and to communicate with the entire planet, or even to break news of their own. Of course, the rise of what has variously been called “We-Media,” “social media” or “mass amateurization,” is also having profound implications for traditional media. “The question that mass amateurization poses to traditional media,” notes Clay Shirky, is “What happens when the costs of reproduction and distribution go away? What happens when there’s nothing unique about publishing anymore, because so many users can do it for themselves?” 35 The revolutionary changes that the Internet and online media are ushering in for video, audio, and print services will be further discussed in the sections that follow.

35

Shirky, op. cit., p. 60-1. Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 32

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Exhibit 16: Overall Social Network Users Growing

Exhibit 17: User-Generated Content on the Rise

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 33

Progress & Freedom Foundation

III. Audio / Radio
For most of the past century, the audible information and entertainment sector was generally thought of as broadcast radio, the recorded music industry, and the live music business. It was a fairly stable industry that did not witness business modelshattering type changes. In radio, AM gave way to FM. In the field of recorded music, vinyl gave way to tapes and CDs. And live music simply found larger (and more) venues.

Exhibit 18: The New Competition for Our Ears

Today, however, stability has given way to volatility. This entire marketplace is in a state of seemingly constant upheaval. Everything has changed and continues to change at a rapid pace as “disruptive technologies” fly at us with increasing regularity. Old business models are breaking down, and new ones are multiplying. Long-standing industry players are shedding assets or even disappearing as underdogs rapidly enter

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 35

Progress & Freedom Foundation

the sector and become big dogs overnight. It has become a textbook example of Schumpeterian creative destruction in action. 36 This chapter will examine how competition and choice are shaping up in the market for audible entertainment. However, we won’t be spending much time herein documenting the upheaval in the recorded music sector because it has been well documented elsewhere. The recorded music business as we have known it is in serious trouble, and its days may be numbered. Of course, part of that upheaval has been brought about by the breakdown of copyright within that sector, which makes the analysis more complicated regarding whether or not change in that sector will benefit consumers in the long run. But creative destruction and marketplace evolution is clearly benefiting consumers overall. Consumers have more audio choices—for both news and entertainment—than ever before.

A. Terrestrial Broadcast Radio
Terrestrial broadcast radio is one of the oldest and most important media sectors. More broadcast radio stations exist in America today than ever before. The number of broadcast radio stations has roughly doubled since 1975, from 7,903 stations in 1975 to 13,599 stations in 2007.

36

Long-time Washington Post radio analyst Marc Fisher closed out his weekly “The Listener” column in June of 2008 by penning a bit of eulogy for terrestrial broadcast radio. He argued that, “The old delivery systems will either die off or change functions, just as the arrival of TV changed radio's role from the main stage of popular culture to a utility providing headlines, traffic reports, temperature and the latest pop hits. The next decade or more will be a transitional time, as radio, like newspapers and television networks, forswears allegiance to any one means of distribution and declares itself platform-agnostic. Those media that, like the record industry, cling to old technology and a collapsed business model will see their futures crumble before their eyes.” Marc Fisher, “Weakening Signal,” Washington Post, June 1, 2008, p, M3, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052903285.html Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 36

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Exhibit 19: Broadcast Radio Stations Have Doubled Since 1975

Exhibit 20: What Radio Monopoly?

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 37

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Exhibit 21: Radio Station Ownership Changes, 2006 vs. 2007

And contrary to what many critics claim, the radio market is not dominated by any one firm. In fact, the largest station holder, Clear Channel Communications, owns less than 5% of all radio station licenses. Meanwhile, the ownership picture continues to change rapidly, with most major operators recently shedding more properties than adding new ones. As the next two exhibits illustrate, broadcast radio formats are also evolving and serving a remarkable variety of human interests. In particular, news and talk formats have proliferated quite rapidly in recent years. According to BIA Financial Network, the number of news/talk local radio stations has grown by more than 300 since 2000, a 24% increase. 37 Terrestrial radio operators are also rapidly rolling out HD (high-definition) radio and online multicasts to offer local content in all new ways. And terrestrial radio remains the same price it always has: free!

37

Mark Fratrik, “Over-the-Air Radio Service to Diverse Audiences—An Update,” BIA Financial Network, April 28, 2008, p. 9, www.nab.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Filings2&CONTENTID=12280&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisp lay.cfm Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 38

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Exhibit 22: Remarkable Diversity on the Radio Dial

Exhibit 23: Rise of News / Talk Radio Format

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 39

Progress & Freedom Foundation

B. Non-Commercial Radio
Terrestrial radio stations don’t just face more competition from each other; they also face a growing non-commercial radio presence. Many surveys of the state of the radio marketplace ignore the effect of non-commercial radio and National Public Radio (NPR) even though they are growing rapidly and capturing listeners from commercial stations. “Non-commercial radio has become a major media force,” argues Benjamin Compaine of Harvard University. 38 And Diane Mermigas of MediaPost believes that, “Public broadcasting may be better situated for the digital transition than its commercial broadcasting counterparts, having forged its fortunes on content bound by special interests, political issues and civic action.” 39 According to BIA Financial Network, the number of non-commercial radio stations has increased 158% since 1980. And as a percentage of commercial stations, non-commercial stations have grown from less than 6% in 1970 to more than 20% in 2007.

Just how extensive is NPR’s reach today? Consider this blurb from NPR’s, 2005 Annual Report: Since its launch in 1970, NPR has evolved into a major media organization, primary news provider, and dominant force in American life. In 2005, a record 26 million listeners weekly tuned in to NPR programs. More than 800 public radio stations, throughout all 50 states, bring NPR to their local communities; more than 99 percent of Americans live in an area served by an NPR member station. 40

Exhibit 25: The Explosion of Satellite Radio

C. Satellite Radio
Satellite radio, a sector that didn’t even exist before 2001, is now a growing force, too. Satellite radio subscribership has been growing explosively since 2001. Satellite radio providers XM and Sirius had more than 16 million subscribers at the end of 2007, almost twice as many as they had just two years before that. Practically every conceivable musical genre has its own channel, and some categories have multiple channels. XM has more than 170 stations, and Sirius more than over 130. Importantly, both satellite radio operators have been stealing talent away from broadcast radio networks and signing other notable media personalities and sports
40

National Public Radio, 2005 Annual Report, www.npr.org/about/annualreports/2005_Annual_Report.pdf Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 41

Progress & Freedom Foundation

leagues. Talk radio personalities and public radio programs have also found a home on satellite radio. Satellite radio increasingly offers local traffic and weather reports for many major metropolitan areas.

Exhibit 26: Diverse Content Choices on Satellite Radio

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 42

Progress & Freedom Foundation

D. Music on TV
In addition to the pay TV channels dedicated to music today (MTV, VH1, CMT, etc.), audio-only channels are now also available on most cable and satellite TV systems. Music Choice is the most popular of these services. It offers more than 50 channels of commercial-free music and features a wide variety of musical genres and distinct channels. 41 URGE Radio is a new competitor in this space, which also offers dozens of musical channel choices on some major cable and satellite distribution networks. 42

E. Digital Audio, iPods, and Internet Radio
And then there’s the Internet and digital music. New audio competition is rapidly emerging from iPods and MP3 players, online digital music, Internet radio, and podcasting. Many of these technologies and services are also accessible through our cell phones and other mobile devices (ex: iPhone and PlayStation Portable, etc.), and much, much more is on the way. Sites and technologies such as LastFM, 43 Pandora 44 and Slacker 45 foreshadow a future of hyper-tailored and completely portable audible entertainment options. It is already the case that many people can’t leave home without their MP3 player. The chance to customize their own music and their own playlists has created a market and an industry replete with its own lingo, accessories, and sense of style. And, increasingly, iPods and MP3 players are becoming not just the playthings of the very young, but a tool for all ages to consume their music or audible information and for entertainment on the go.

As would be expected, a growth in the number of MP3 players available has led to a growth in the value of digital music sales. Although full album sales have been plummeting, the increasing number of people who are buying digital downloads of their favorite song is one of the few bright spots in an otherwise troubled industry.

Exhibit 29: The Rise of Digital Music

But it’s not just on-demand tunes that digital music listeners are looking for. Increasingly, consumers are also getting news, sports scores, movie reviews, and even hobby advice in the form of digital files that they can download and listen to at any time. Known as “podcasts”, these fully recorded programs are downloaded for free (Adsupported) or are paid for as a subscription (user supported), and they are increasingly taking the roles that talk radio used to fill. Podcasts have done for audio entertainment what TiVo and other DVRs have done for video (and which we’ll discuss more in the next chapter). No longer a captive audience, listeners can choose when they want to listen to a program. And broadcasts that could never have fit into a traditional radio station’s lineup can now be heard whenever it’s convenient. Almost unheard of just five years ago, podcasts are becoming more and more prevalent in society and are filling niches that traditional broadcasters could never have covered.

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 45

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Exhibit 30: Podcast Creation on the Rise

Exhibit 31: Podcast Awareness Growing Rapidly

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 46

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Not only are the number of podcasts growing, so are the number of people who are both aware of them and who are listening. The number of actual listeners is still quite low, but as more consumers gain access to the relevant technologies needed to consume podcasts, the market for them and the effect that they have on the media landscape may grow.

F. Ratings and Listening Time
With the rise of new audio competition, broadcast radio station listenership is falling steadily. Listenership is falling fastest for younger demographic groups. According to Arbitron ratings data, from the summer of 1999 to the summer of 2007, average quarter-hour radio ratings for the teen demographic (ages 12-17) fell almost 22%, listeners between the ages of 18 and 24 fell by 20%, and those between the ages of 25 and 35 years of age fell by 18%.

Exhibit 32: Traditional Radio Ratings Slipping

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 47

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Exhibit 33: Broadcast Radio Listening Time Falling

Source: Arbitron

All this new competition for our ears is also taking a serious toll on traditional radio broadcasters and their ability to attract advertising support. As was illustrated previously, radio advertising is starting to drop off significantly.

Exhibit 34: Radio Ad Dollars in Jeopardy

This decline is having a serious impact on the financial health of the broadcast radio industry. Radio station revenue growth was -0.1% in 2007 and BIA Financial
Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 48

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Network estimates that radio revenues will not break 1.5% in any of the next three years.

Exhibit 35: Radio Revenues Dropping Steadily

In sum, the audio marketplace is one of the most competitive and rapidly changing segments of the media universe. The changes in this sector have not been kind to traditional media providers, especially radio broadcasters, who face myriad new (and largely unregulated) competitors that are stealing away listeners and advertisers. Overall, however, consumers have more audio options at their disposal than ever before.

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 49

Progress & Freedom Foundation

IV. Video / Television
The previous chapter documented the radical metamorphosis taking place in the market for audible information and entertainment. That once stable sector now finds itself in a state of seemingly constant upheaval, especially thanks to the blistering pace of technological change we are witnessing today. This chapter will show how a similar transformation has been unfolding in the video marketplace over the past three decades. Again, using the analytical framework presented earlier, we will see that—relative to the past—citizens have more choice, competition, and diversity in every layer of the video value chain.

A.

The Rapidly Changing TV Value Chain

Kenneth Goldstein of Communications Management, Inc., has created a set of enlightening television value chains that compare the state of the marketplace from 1975 to the present.

Goldstein’s diagrams illustrate the amazing changes that have taken place over the past quarter century in terms of the added layers of visual content and of video distribution and delivery options. But the visual revolution has actually been much more profound that even those exhibits suggest. The very form and nature of video creation and consumption have changed in recent years as well. These changes are nicely summarized in a diagram created by media futurist Gerd Leonhard, who has highlighted the major differences between “old TV” and “TV 2.0” in his work. 46 As Leonhard’s exhibit shows, the old video world could be characterized as passive, linear, scheduled, and dominated by “professional” content. In that environment, video producers called the shots. The old order has now been upended and our new video marketplace is interactive, unscheduled, and time-shifted, with abundant professional and amateur content available. Today, video consumers call the shots. “Production and distribution [of video] are quickly becoming democratized,” argues Shelly Palmer, author of Television Disrupted: The Transition from Network to Networked TV. “And every day seems to herald a new, world-changing technology and the portent of a new paradigm to accompany it.” 47
46 47

www.flickr.com/photos/gleonhard/68268003/ Shelly Palmer, Television Disrupted: The Transition from Network to Networked TV (Oxford: Focal Press, 2006), p. 1. Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 52

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Exhibit 38: “Old TV” vs. “New TV” Characteristics

The fundamental driver of this video revolution has been the technological innovation we have seen at work in every layer of the media value chain. That continuous innovation has resulted in an age of scarcity giving way to an age of abundance.

B.

Broadcast Television

Consider what the rise of media abundance has meant for one of the oldest video platforms—broadcasting. There was a time, not long ago, when broadcast television was synonymous with television itself. Some of us are old enough to remember an era when 3 or 4 VHF channels (and perhaps a few fuzzy UHF channels) constituted the extent of the video experience in our homes! Those days are (thankfully) forever gone. Not only are there more nationwide broadcast networks than in the past, but also there are more local broadcast TV stations in America today. The number of broadcast TV stations has roughly doubled since 1970, from 875 stations in 1970 to 1,760 stations in 2007.

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 53

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Exhibit 39: Broadcast TV Stations Have Doubled Since 1970

Exhibit 40: Pay TV Market Competition Growing

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 54

Progress & Freedom Foundation

C.

Multichannel Video (Cable, Satellite, and Telco)

But the growth of broadcast choices is hardly the end of the story, of course. In each of the next three decades, a major new video distribution provider would appear on the scene: cable in the late 1970s & early 1980s; satellite TV in 1990s; and telcodelivered video during this decade. Today, these “multichannel video distribution services” are subscribed to by 86% of Americans. The chart above illustrates the respective shares of each type of pay TV provider and shows that satellite and telco companies are increasingly eating into cable’s early lead. What has this meant for consumers? First, the proverbial “500-channel” cable universe we used to just dream about is now a reality. The overall number of video programming channels available in America has skyrocketed, from just 70 channels in 1990 to 565 channels in 2006.

Exhibit 41: More Choice, Less Vertical Integration in Cable Market

Meanwhile—and despite claims to the contrary—vertical integration in the video marketplace has plummeted. Some media critics claim that cable operators act as “gatekeepers” in the video programming marketplace and are limiting the ability of independent voices to get a slot on cable distribution systems. Nothing could be further from the truth. More cable and satellite networks are available today than ever before,
Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 55

Progress & Freedom Foundation

and the greatest share of the growth in the multichannel video marketplace has come from independently owned video networks. Since 1990, the number of cable-owned or affiliated channels has increased slightly, but it pales in comparison with the growth of independently owned and operated video networks. In real terms, therefore, the percentage of the overall video marketplace controlled (i.e., owned and operated) by cable has plummeted—from 50% in 1990 to just 14.9% today. Consequently, as far as vertically integrated industries go, it is impossible to conclude that this one could be characterized as being controlled by “gatekeepers.” With more independently owned networks, there is a greater diversity of niche programming on cable and satellite TV today than ever before. There really isn’t any human interest or hobby that is not currently covered by some video network. As the FCC concluded in its 2003 Media Ownership Proceeding: “We are moving to a system served by literally hundreds of networks serving all conceivable interests.” 48 The table below shows the sheer diversity of niche programming on pay TV today (and is by no means an exhaustive list of all the channels that exist currently).

48

Federal Communications Commission, In the Matter of 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review – Review of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, FCC 03-127, June 2, 2003, pp. 48-9, http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-127A1.pdf Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 56

All this new choice has meant that the viewing audience is more fragmented than ever before. For an illustration of the remarkable fragmentation of the television viewing audience, consider that the top shows on TV in the 1950s garnered 40-50% of the viewing audience. By the 1970s, the top TV shows were still pulling in more than 30% of the audience. Today, however, with so many other media options vying for our increasingly scarce attention, the top shows on TV are lucky to break 15%. The following table lists the top-rated shows on TV from 1950 to 2005 and illustrates just how splintered the audience has become in the battle for “attention share.”

Exhibit 43: Fragmentation of TV Audience

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 58

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Exhibit 44: Falling Audience Shares for Traditional TV

Exhibit 45: Increasing Cable TV Ratings

For broadcast TV networks, these trends have been particularly devastating. Broadcast networks have lost prime-time market share every year for the past 25 years.
Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 59

Progress & Freedom Foundation

The first chart above shows how the “Big 3” networks, which had a 90 share of the primetime market in 1980, control only a 32 share today. The second chart is another cut at the same thing using day shares. It shows that since the late 1990s, cable has dominated broadcasting. As a result, cable and other forms of media have been gaining ground in the advertising market. Although broadcasters still command a very respectable share of overall advertising dollars, the sector’s cut of the pie has steadily fallen every year for the past decade. This power shift in the ad market is important because broadcast television is almost completely reliant on advertising to sustain its programming expenses. Cable, satellite, telco, and other video providers have alternative financing options, namely, subscriptions and user fees. These developments have many industry analysts wondering how long broadcasting’s “free, over-the-air” business model will remain sustainable. Recall the trends documented in the earlier chart about advertising dollar shares.

Exhibit 46: Broadcast TV Advertising Falling Steadily

E.

DVRs, VOD, and Other New Viewer Empowerment Tools

It’s also worth noting the many ways that technology has not only given viewers more choice but also put them in control of their viewing experiences. New video empowerment technologies—such as digital video recorders (DVRs), video on demand (VOD), VCRs and DVD players—have revolutionized the way the public consumes

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 60

Progress & Freedom Foundation

visual media by giving viewers unprecedented control over their viewing preferences and timetables. Of course, it is also true that although these technologies have empowered viewers, they have presented new challenges for those traditional media operators who rely primarily on advertising to support content creation and distribution. Regardless, this empowerment revolution shows no signs of abating and will continue to reshape the video marketplace. The following exhibits document the growth of these tools and their declining prices.

Exhibit 47: VCR & DVD Players are Ubiquitous

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 61

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Exhibit 48: DVRs and VOD on the Rise

Exhibit 49: DVR Prices Falling, Sales Exploding

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 62

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Exhibit 50: Prices for Video Hardware Plummeting

F.

The Internet and Online Video

Finally, there’s the Internet. The Internet and online / interactive technologies have contributed more to the revolutionary changes that we have seen at work in the market for visual news, information, and entertainment than all other factors combined. The following exhibits illustrated the growth of Internet video content and online video consumption in general. ABI Research predicts that the number of viewers who access online video will nearly quadruple in the next few years, reaching at least one billion in 2013. 49

49

“More Than One Billion Users Will View Online Video in 2013,” ABI research, May 27, 2008, www.abiresearch.com/abiprdisplay.jsp?pressid=1138 Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 63

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Exhibit 51: More People Posting Videos Online

Exhibit 52: Video-Sharing Sites on the Rise

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 64

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Exhibit 53: More People Viewing Online Video

Exhibit 54: Plenty of Ways to Watch Videos

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 65

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Jeffrey Lindsay, a senior analyst with Bernstein Research, notes that the effect of user-generated content on traditional media is growing: The most significant impact seen from YouTube and similar properties to date seems to have been a modest re-allocation of people's media time. As far as surveys can measure, there seems to have been a small shift away from TV, print, and radio—mostly by Generation Y (birth years 1980-1994) males but also a significant group of females in that age band. However, as the sheer volume and diversity of [user-generated] content continues to multiply—still near exponentially—this shift in media time allocation will likely extend to other demographics who are heavier users of conventional media and the effects will become more noticeable. 50 This final chart documents the fact that consumers are increasingly spending more time online and less time using traditional media sources. That’s the substitution effect at work again, in this case with a vengeance.

V. Print (Newspapers & Magazines)
The section will discuss developments within the print media marketplace, which is America’s oldest media sector. It includes books, periodicals, newspapers, and magazines. The newspaper sector will receive the most attention, however, given its historical importance and current economic predicament.

A.

The Decline of the Daily Paper

If we were to believe the rhetoric of some in Washington and various proregulatory groups, you’d think we still lived in the 1800s and that a handful of newspaper barons such as William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer still dominated our media landscape. As the evidence offered in this report makes clear, that just isn’t the case. Yet, critics remain undeterred in their efforts to freeze existing media regulations in place, or even tighten them, using conspiratorial-minded theories of mass media domination. Most recently, they have marshaled their forces in opposition to a half-hearted media liberalization effort undertaken by the Federal Communications Commission in November 2007. That FCC effort dealt with just one of the many regulations governing media structures in this country: the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule. 51 The rule, which has been in effect since 1975, prohibits a newspaper owner from owning a radio or television station in the same media market. The FCC proposed slightly relaxing the rule in just the largest media markets. In a New York Times editorial, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin argued that “in many towns and cities, the newspaper is an endangered species,” and that “if we don’t act to improve the health of the newspaper industry, we will see newspapers wither and die.” 52 Moreover, he wrote, “The ban on newspapers owning a broadcast station in their local markets may end up hurting the quality of news and the commitment of news organizations to their local communities.” 53 In other words, newspapers need the flexibility to change business arrangements and to ally with others to survive. Chairman Martin is right, and those are just a few of the arguments for scrapping a regulation that dates to a bygone era and is hindering the ability of an industry sector in deep crisis to respond to a radically changed media marketplace. And there is no
51

question about whether or not there is a crisis in the industry: Newspapers have been in steep decline—both the total number of papers and paid circulation—since 1980.

Exhibit 56: The Decline of the Daily Newspaper

Daily circulation has been in a state of freefall since 1980, and readers of all ages are turning away from papers and toward the myriad other media options at their disposal. Editor & Publisher reports that America’s top 20 newspapers witnessed a loss of more than 1.4 million readers from September 2004 to September 2007. 54 Some of the most notable names in the business—The Boston Globe, The Los Angeles Times, The San Francisco Chronicle—saw circulation fall by 20% or more during that four-year period. “The newspaper industry is condemned to write piecemeal its own obituary without knowing when or how—or, truth be told, if—the end will come,” says Washington Post editorial page writer Jim Hoagland. 55

The gradual loss of readers—especially among the much coveted younger demographic groups—has also taken a toll in terms of lost advertising. Craigslist, Google, eBay, Monster.com and other online sites and services are “disintermidiating the newspaper classified business,” argues Jeffrey Lindsay of Bernstein Research, and he adds, “The prospects for the newspaper classified business will continue to worsen over time.” 56 Lindsay explains: Online classified advertising is a classic disruptive technology; fundamentally, the Internet is actually even better than print for reaching large audiences at very low cost. If set up well … online classified can be almost entirely operated on a selfservice basis, eliminating the largest cost components of the sector—capital for printing presses and staff to sell and set up the ads. 57 In June 2008, the New York Times reported that ad revenue fell almost 8 percent in 2007 and was running about 12 percent below that dismal performance in 2008. Worse yet, the situation appears to be getting much worse with each passing month. Peter S. Appert, an analyst at Goldman Sachs, told the Times, “I think the probability is very high that there will be a number of examples of individual newspapers and newspaper companies that fall into a loss position. And I think it’s inevitable that there will be closures in this industry, and maybe bankruptcies.” 58 Times reporter Richard Perez-Pena also noted that, “Analysts and newspaper executives find themselves revising their forecasts downward every few months, unable to gain a stable footing on a sinking floor. Papers have cut costs by shedding thousands of workers, eliminating some distribution routes and printing fewer, smaller pages, but profit margins continue to shrink.” 59 Indeed, the overall financial toll for newspapers has been devastating. The charts above illustrate the sector’s advertising dollars are plummeting relative to other media. And almost all newspaper stocks have lost significant value in the past few years, as the following charts illustrate.

Can newspaper survive in this environment? Many will because they have acknowledged the realities of the Information Age and have altered their business models to respond to new competitive pressures. Namely, they have diversified operations and moved their content online. Others, however, will struggle as they continue to lose readers and advertisers. It is important to recall that newspapers cost a lot more to produce than the pocket change we pay for them. Advertising crosssubsidizes all that wonderful content we get in each edition. And now those advertisers—whether they are businesses or individuals—have many other places to put their ads or classifieds in a multimedia world. Therefore, the industry needs all the regulatory flexibility it can get in terms of freedom to reorganize its business however it thinks best to meet the new competitive challenges.

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 74

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Exhibit 64: Publishing Industry Employment Now below 1994 Levels

Why then would some critics want to leave in place decades-old regulatory shackles that might hinder the ability of this struggling sector to respond to its many unregulated media challengers? Either those critics are stuck in the past and believe that papers somehow continue to dominate society’s information cycle, or else they would rather just see papers wither and die rather than allow them to attain the scale that might be necessary to survive. Regardless, newspapers are in serious trouble and archaic media ownership constraints could limit their ability to respond, evolve, and meet the new media competitors and challenges they face.

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 75

Progress & Freedom Foundation

B.

Magazine and Book Diversity

Not everyone in the print world is struggling as much as newspapers, however. Magazines remain fairly strong. The number of titles continues to proliferate rapidly. More important, the diversity of titles is simply staggering. It is almost impossible to find a human interest that is not covered by at least one title.

And many magazines have a strong and growing online presence. During the last quarter of 2007, traffic to consumer magazine websites grew 8.1%, according to the Magazine Publishers of America. According to the MPA, the growth of these sites is “more than three times” the growth rate of the overall U.S. Internet audience. 60

Exhibit 68: Magazines Increasingly Have Online Presence

Finally, it goes without saying that an amazing diversity of book titles continues to be produced. Every conceivable human interest is covered, and the list of genres seems to just grow and grow, as is indicated by a snapshot of Amazon.com’s book categories.

VI. “Localism” in Media
A. The Natural Decline of Media “Localism”
The decline of “localism” in media is a much-lamented but quite natural phenomenon as citizens gain access to news and entertainment sources of broader scale and scope. Although it is impossible to scientifically measure exactly how much “local” fare citizens demand—and defining the term is another challenge—we know that they still receive a wealth of information about developments in their communities. However, it is also evident that, left to their own devices, many citizens have voluntarily flocked to national (and even international) sources of news and entertainment. Consider the success of the nationally-focused USA Today. It didn’t exist 30 years ago, but it is now America’s most popular newspaper. Likewise, daily editions of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times—papers of national, even global scope—are delivered to homes and offices across the country each day. Indeed, as of 2006, 56% of the daily circulation of the New York Times was outside of the New York area.

Exhibit 70: New York Times Readership Larger Outside of Home Market

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 81

Progress & Freedom Foundation

Similarly, with the rise of cable television and cable “superstations” (nationwide networks) throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Americans have increasingly turned to national news and entertainment options in the video marketplace. CNN, Fox News, ESPN, HBO, and Showtime, TNT, The Weather Channel are just a few examples of popular national networks that have captured the public’s attention and viewing allegiance. Although the idea of 24-hour national news, sports, and weather channels was once mocked, it is now clear that the public demands such options. Further, as previous chapters have documented, nationwide direct broadcast satellite (DBS) services spread quickly across the nation and have been particularly popular in rural communities, as have satellite radio services. Finally, the rise of the Internet and the World Wide Web has also driven many citizens to shift their attention to national and international sources of news and entertainment. For example, few Americans had access to BBC News or the Financial Times 20 years ago. Yet those respected British news sources can be accessed by almost anyone in the United States today. In sum, for whatever reason, Americans seem to be increasingly choosing national sources of media content and communications over local sources. This finding begs the question, however: In an attempt to preserve local voices, should the New York Times be prevented from delivering papers to homes outside the New York metro area? Should distribution of the USA Today be somehow restricted so that citizens would have access to only local papers? Should national video and audio services be prohibited to protect local media providers? If the current movement toward national platforms for news and entertainment is a natural cultural and technological development, as it appears to be, should government have any role in curbing the resulting mix of national versus local media outputs? Indeed, even if the viewing and listening choices made by citizens result in a decline in local media relative to national programming, would critics want the government to limit consumer choices to stop this natural progression? Such a proposal would be elitist, anti-consumer, and probably completely unworkable.

B. Evolution of the Concept
Local content has not evaporated, however; the market is just evolving. With so many new information and entertainment options now available, local fare will likely never command as much attention as it once did. Yet, it is obvious that many citizens continue to place a high value on being able to access some local information. In particular, local news, weather, and traffic reports are essential to the daily lives of many Americans. Others just want to see their child’s name in the local paper when he or she scores a point in a local sporting event, or to retrieve coupons for a local grocery store.

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 82

Progress & Freedom Foundation

It is difficult to imagine such local information and programming disappearing in a deregulated media marketplace. Indeed, such fare is currently available in almost all local communities from daily or weekly papers, radio stations, cable channels, and websites—even those owned by national media conglomerates. As long as citizens continue to demand local information, someone will provide it. Of course, it won’t be easy for some media operators to continue to offer the same level of service in a world of abundant media alternatives and competitors. But, as the previous chapter noted, onerous media ownership mandates won’t help matters. Archaic media rules that mandate atomistic business models aren’t going to encourage more “localism,” as some regulatory proponents hope. Instead, those regulations will limit the ability of struggling media providers to evolve, or perhaps even to survive, in an increasingly crowded media landscape. Regardless, there are some hopeful signs that local media outlets and services are surviving and evolving to serve communities in unique ways: • Strong, continued interest in local information: In 2007, the Missouri School of Journalism conducted its second Community Newspaper Study, which surveyed more than 500 adults living in areas with a total population of 25,000 or fewer. 61 Of the adults surveyed, 83% said they read a local newspaper every week, up slightly from a similar 2005 survey. Importantly, 99% of the readers said they read local news, up from 95% in 2005; 64% said they read local news “very often,” up by 15% from 2005. Finally, 76% of respondents said their local news coverage was good to excellent, almost identical to the 2005 result (78%). Free local papers growing: The Association of Free Community Papers, which represents the publishers of more than 3,000 free-circulation local papers, reports that the combined circulation of all free papers is larger than all daily newspapers in the United States. These free local papers reach an average 40 million homes weekly with circulation in excess of 90 million readers. 62 “Alternative newsweeklies” increasingly popular: The Association of Alternative Newsweeklies (AAN) represents a diverse group of “alt-weekly” news organizations throughout North America. The organization had only 30 newspapers when it began in 1978, but 129 papers now compose the association. They publish in 41 states and the District of Columbia in the United States, as well as in four Canadian provinces. Although a wide range of publications are represented by the AAN, the organization notes that “What ties them together are a strong focus on local news, culture and the arts; an informal and sometimes profane style; an emphasis on point-of-view reporting and narrative journalism; a tolerance for individual freedoms and social differences;

•

•

61

The Community Newspaper Study, Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute, University of Missouri School of Journalism, 2007, http://rji.missouri.edu/research/stories/community-newspaperstudy/index.php 62 www.afcp.org/design/general/facts_figures.asp Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 83

Progress & Freedom Foundation

and an eagerness to report on issues and communities that many mainstream media outlets ignore.” 63 • Intense cable-telco competition for hyperlocal TV: Many cable television providers have jumped into the local TV news business and provide a wide variety of local public affairs programming. A 2004 report by the Radio and Television News Directors Foundation (RTNDF) found that “millions of Americans can now tune in to regional and local news on more than 30 cable channels across the country.” 64 The RTNDF found that these local and regional cable TV news and public affairs channels provide “non-stop local news” that is “as local as local news can get.” 65 Cable operators have been expanding on those efforts, especially as they face heated competition from telecommunications companies that are now aggressively invading the video marketplace. For example, the new fiber-optic “FIOS” television services being rolled out in many communities by Verizon Communications include the “FIOS1 TV” channel. Produced in conjunction with HyperLocal News Productions, the channel provides a community forum called “Push-Pause,” which features “hyperlocal news and community stories shot by trained citizen video journalists who live in the area.” 66 Cable operators are fighting back with even more local content and services of their own. “The idea,” reports Dionne Searcey of the Wall Street Journal, “is to feature ‘super-local’ stories on people who probably wouldn’t be seen on more-typical shows.” 67 For example, she notes: This past spring Cablevision began airing the features as part of its “Local on Demand,” which offers an array of community parades, street fairs and high-school sports. One show, “Meet the Leaders,” features 30-minute interviews with local elected officials. “Neighborhood Journal” is similar to Verizon’s Push-Pause, with slice-of-life community features. Comcast, the nation’s biggest cable operator by subscribers, has formed a “Get Local” team of six employees solely responsible for producing localized content. They have delivered a raft of new on-demand offerings in certain markets, including the pet-adoption show “Pets ON DEMAND” in

the Washington and Baltimore markets, and a sort of localized version of “America’s Most Wanted” called “Police Blotter” in Delaware. 68 • Many online sources of local news and information: “The new local is topical blogs, social networks and other online communities that reach engaged consumers,” argues Diane Mermigas of MediaPost. 69 Indeed, new “hyper-local” websites such as Local.com, 70 YourStreet.com, 71 YourHub.com, 72 73 74 YouNewsTV.com, and EveryBlock.com foreshadow a future of highly tailored community portals for local news and content. For example, although it is currently operating only in a handful of big cities, EveryBlock.com offers local citizens the ability to “collect all of the news and civic goings-on that have happened recently in your city, and make it simple for you to keep track of news in particular areas.” YourStreet.com and YourHub.com offer similar services for other communities. Such “geographic filters” could become a prominent media model in a more connected future and could offer citizens constant news feeds for their neighborhood, or even local block. “Traditional media firms are making their move, too,” notes Bob Ingrassia of the State of the Local blog, and they are “defending their [homegrown] turf” by offering hyperlocal portals. 75 He points to sites such as Examiner.com, which aggregates local news for almost 60 metro areas across America. 76 It is a project of billionaire investor Phil Anschutz, who is the force behind the Examiner newspapers, which have made significant inroads into local news online. There’s also WCAU-TV’s DigPhilly.com and the Chicago Tribune’s TribLocal.com. 77 Ingrassia also highlights homegrown operators such as MNspeak.com (Twin Cities area), 78 Pegasus News.com (Dallas-Fort Worth area), 79 and Crosscut Seattle. 80 These sites, he notes, “compile local blogs, aggregate traditional media, produce their own content, and host forums.” 81 Finally, Topix.com is an impressive local news aggregation site that receives investment support from

newspaper industry giants Gannett Co., the McClatchy Company and Tribune Company. 82 • New technologies make finding local information easier: In May 2008, Google matched up its Google Earth and Google News services so that local news reports could be discovered simply by running your mouse over cities on the Google Earth map. The Google Lat Long Blog noted of the new service: By spatially locating the Google News’ constantly updating index of stories from more than 4,500 news sources, Google Earth now shows an everchanging world of human activity as chronicled by reporters worldwide. Zoom into areas of personal interest and peruse headlines of national, regional and, when fully zoomed in, even the most local of interest. From school menus to global warming, there is now literally a world of information at your fingertips. 83 Google News also allows users to type in their city name and zip code and to retrieve all the local news available online from their area. 84 These examples demonstrate how local markets and media providers are evolving to offer consumers the information they demand even as the overall balance of local-vs.-national fare shifts as a result of changing consumer preferences.

C. Still Plenty of Local Outlets and Owners
Finally, despite claims to the contrary, almost all communities have experienced a net increase in the overall number of media outlets and owners serving local consumers. As the adjoining exhibit illustrates, an FCC survey of 10 randomly sized media markets—from the largest (New York City) to the smallest (Altoona, Pa.)— reveals that in every case there were more media outlets and more media owners existed in 2000 than did in 1960. Importantly, the FCC was being extremely conservative when compiling these data. The agency counted all the cable channels available in a media market as part of a single cable or DBS system. Apparently, the FCC didn’t want to claim that each channel equaled a different media outlet even though most viewers would consider them distinct outlets. Moreover, national newspapers are not included in the count, nor are Internet sites taken into account as alternative media sources. Thus, the diversity picture is even brighter than this table suggests.
82 83

Of course, there may be some communities (especially very small rural media markets) that have not experienced similar gains over the past 40 years. But how are we defining “media markets”? Again, with the rise of more regional and nationwide media outlets, it is increasingly difficult to nail down exactly where one media market begins and another ends. Even if only one or two companies own the primary media operations in a small town, other sources of news and entertainment may well be provided by other media outlets located outside the community. More important, as mentioned earlier, new media services and technologies, especially the Internet, make it increasingly possible for local reporting to take on different and broader dimensions than it did in the past. If anything, the ability of citizens to obtain local news and information is greater than it has ever been. In sum, the demise of “localism” has been greatly exaggerated. The relative decline in local media is simply a natural development resulting from the voluntary choices made by millions of American citizens, but the tools for producing, distributing, and acquiring local content are more robust than ever.

Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 87

Progress & Freedom Foundation

VII. A Dynamic Market: Downsizing & Divestitures Since 2003
This final section is an effort to set the record straight regarding one of the leading myths about the media marketplace today: the notion that rampant consolidation is taking place and that operators are only growing larger and devouring more and more companies. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) represent just one of many strategies that media companies use to meet consumer demand. Other strategies include spin-offs and lineof-business divestitures, on the one hand, and new technological investments or expanded product or service offerings, on the other. But it is M&A activity that captures all the attention. “Break-ups and divestitures do not generally get front-page treatment,” notes Ben Compaine, author of Who Owns the Media? 85 Indeed, media downsizing generates barely a whisper in the mainstream press, and the few stories that are written about it are usually buried in the back pages of business magazines or are deep within financial websites. By contrast, when companies undertake (or even contemplate) the opposite—a merger or acquisition—it garners significant coverage. In recent years, the volume of divestiture activity in the media sector has been quite intense, and many traditional media operators are getting smaller, not bigger. “Traditional media’s numbers are shrinking,” argued FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell in a recent speech. 86 “The ironic truth is,” McDowell continued, that “in many cases, media consolidation has actually become media divestiture. Companies… have been shedding properties to raise capital for new ventures.” A summary of recent media downsizing activity follows.

Viacom-CBS
In March 2005, Viacom announced its intention to split the company into two distinct entities. 87 One company includes CBS Corporation, its television and radio stations, and Paramount Television. The other (still called Viacom) includes MTV, Nickelodeon, Showtime, and the other cable networks. This split reversed years of
85

growth at Viacom and led Viacom Chairman Sumner Redstone to conclude, “The age of the conglomerate is over.” 88 After the split, there was more restructuring at CBS Corporation. In May 2006, CBS Corporation announced its intention to sell 39 of radio stations in ten of its smaller markets. Those radio deals were all completed by late November 2007. 89 In February 2007, CBS also divested seven of its owned television stations to Cerberus Capital Management L.P. for $185 million. 90 CBS also sold off its Paramount Parks amusement part assets in the summer of 2006. 91 Summarizing its recent divestiture activity, CBS’s third quarter 2007 earning report noted: “When comparing full year 2007 to 2006 on a reported basis, revenues will be down 2% to 3% as we have disposed of certain lower-margin, slower-growth assets, including 39 radio stations, 9 television stations, UPN, and the non-renewal of several of our urban outdoor transit contracts.” 92

Clear Channel
Throughout the 1990s, Clear Channel Communications Inc. was a major acquirer of media properties—especially radio stations. In recent years, however, the firm has completely reversed course and has been selling off a wide variety of assets. (The firm has also agreed to a $19.5 billion buyout by a private equity group led by Bain Capital Partners LLC and Thomas H. Lee Partners L.P.) 93 On the radio side of its business, Clear Channel held almost 1,200 radio stations in 2000, but has been shedding assets rapidly since then. In November 2006, the firm announced its intention to sell 448 (roughly one-third) of the 1,150 radio stations it held at that time. 94 Those stations are located in 90 small markets across the U.S. Once all the transactions are complete, Clear Channel will own less than 6% of all radio station licenses in the United States, down from a high of roughly 9% in 2004. Clear Channel has also exited the television business entirely. In April 2007, the firm announced it would sell its television stations to Providence Equity Partners Inc. for approximately $1.2 billion. 95 The sale included more than 50 television stations located in 24 markets across the United States. Providence Equity established a new holding company known as Newport Television LLC to manage the TV stations it acquired from Clear Channel. But Newport Television also announced its intention to sell seven of those stations to other companies after the deal closed.
88 89

Finally, in December 2005, Clear Channel completed the spin-off of its former live entertainment segment, which now operates under the name Live Nation.

Walt Disney
In June 2007, the Walt Disney Company finalized the sale of its entire ABC Radio Holdings division to Citadel Broadcasting Corporation. 96 The deal included 22 large-market radio stations and the ABC Radio Network, but the deal excluded Disney’s ESPN Radio or Radio Disney network.

News Corporation
Although News Corp.’s recent acquisition of the Wall Street Journal generated a great deal of fanfare, less well known is the company’s move to divest other important assets. For example, in December 2006, just three years after acquiring satellite TV provider DirecTV, News Corp. took steps to divest the company to Liberty Media Corporation. 97 And in December 2007, News Corp. announced that it will be shedding eight of its Fox-affiliated TV stations in midsize markets. 98 News Corp. is selling the stations to Oak Hill Capital Partners for about $1.1 billion in cash. The sale leaves News Corp. with just 27 owned-and-operated Fox TV stations, most of which are located in major media markets.

Time Warner
Time Warner’s mega-merger with AOL in 2000 received wall-to-wall coverage and apocalyptic-minded critics claimed it represented “Big Brother,” “the end of the independent press,” and a harbinger of a “new totalitarianism.” 99 But the marriage has been falling apart ever since, and Time Warner has been shedding assets continuously as the hoped-for “synergies” never really materialized. In fact, by April 2002, just two years after the marriage took place, the firm had reported a staggering $54 billion loss. 100 Losses grew to $99 billion by January 2003. 101 And then in September of 2003, Time Warner decided to drop AOL from its name altogether. 102 It would be an understatement to say that the merger failed to create the sort of synergies (and profits) that were originally hoped for. Indeed, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal in
96 97

2006, Time Warner President Jeffrey Bewkes famously declared the death of “synergy” and went so far as to call synergy “bull—t”! 103 It was unsurprising, therefore, when Time Warner’s Time magazine division announced in September 2006 that it was putting 18 of its 50 magazines up for sale. 104 In early 2008, it decided to shed AOL’s dial-up service. 105 Most recently, the company announced the spin-off of its Time Warner Cable unit. 106 More divestiture appears to be in the cards in coming years for the company.

Emmis Communications
Emmis Communications is a diversified media company that focuses mostly on radio broadcasting. In May 2005, Emmis announced its intent to sell some or all of the 16 television stations it owned at the time. 107 Over the following two years, Emmis sold all but one of those stations.

E. W. Scripps Company
In October 2007, the E. W. Scripps Company, one of America’s oldest media operations, announced a plan to split its operations into two separate entities. 108 One company, which will still be called E. W. Scripps, will cover “old media” print properties and stick to covering local markets. The other company, which will be called Scripps Network Interactive, will focus on "new media" efforts of an interactive nature and with national scope.

Knight Ridder
Knight Ridder Inc. was once one of the most powerful newspaper chains in the United States, but it was dissolved in 2007 after its remaining papers were acquired by the McClatchy Company in June 2006. 109 However, McClatchy immediately sold 12 of

the 32 Knight Ridder papers, as well as a variety of other investments in Internet and technology companies. Those transactions were completed by August 2006. 110

New York Times Company
In September 2006, the New York Times Company announced its intention to sell its entire Broadcast Media Group, which includes nine network-affiliated television stations and their related properties. 111 In May 2007, those stations were sold to Oak Hill Capital, a private equity firm, and became a new station group called Local TV. 112

Belo Corporation
In October 2007, Belo Corporation announced it would break its media operations into two separate entities. 113 Its newspaper business, which includes the Dallas Morning News, the Providence Journal, and a few smaller papers, will be spun off into a new company called the A. H. Belo Corporation. Its television business, which consists of 20 TV stations and some cable properties, will remain as the Belo Corporation.

IAC/Interactive Corp.
In November 2007, media conglomerate IAC/Interactive Corp. announced it would be splitting into five different companies. 114 IAC, which previously controlled more than 60 brands, will now be separated from Ticketmaster, the Home Shopping Network, Lending Tree.com, and Interval International. IAC will continue to control the company’s popular web properties such as Bloglines, Citysearch, Evite, Excite, Match.com, and ServiceMagic.

VIII. Concluding Thoughts
This report has attempted to use a variety of metrics to gauge the state of America’s media marketplace. Generally speaking, these metrics reveal the following: • Scarcity giving way to abundance: Our senses are being bombarded with an unprecedented amount of information and entertainment. Media scarcity is dead. “Today, the scarce resource is attention, not programming,” notes Ellen P. Goodman of the Rutgers-Camden School of Law. 115 Device proliferation; rapid technological diffusion: Not only are more and more media devices available each year, but also new media and communications technologies are spreading throughout society faster with each passing year. Fragmentation of audience: The splintering or segmentation of the audience is driving intense competition in each layer of the media value chain. This fragmentation of audiences has created a battle among media providers for the increasingly scarce amount of consumer “attention share.” User empowerment: Citizens have been empowered to control their viewing, listening, and reading practices. Today, the consumer—not the producer—of media dictates when, where, and how media content will be consumed. User-generated content / “democratization” of media: The combination of the Internet, blogs, and new digital media creation devices has given every man, woman, and child the ability to be a one-person publishing house or broadcaster and to communicate with the entire planet—and even to break news of their own. Although it is true their audience may be somewhat limited, they nonetheless have soapboxes to stand on that were not at their disposal in the past. Advertising shift: Advertising dollars are increasingly flowing away from traditional media outlets (broadcasting and newspapers, in particular) and toward new media platforms (cable TV, the Internet, search providers, social networking sites, etc.). The proliferation of media outlets and the splintering of audience attention have fragmented the advertiser and classified market, meaning advertising is less likely to help sustain large-scale or cost-intensive media enterprises or journalistic endeavors. Increasing substitution: Substitution among media is increasing overall, and markets are growing increasingly competitive as providers vie for consumer “attention share,” which is splintered across multiple platforms.

Death of “mass media;” rise of “micro media”: Because of fragmentation, substitution, and user-generated content, the age of “mass media” has given way to a new world of “micro media” outlets and options. Less ownership concentration: The media marketplace is vigorously competitive and not significantly more concentrated than in past decades. Even as some players have grown larger, technologies, platforms, and providers have significantly broadened the scope of the marketplace. As Columbia University’s Eli Noam has quipped, “[W]hile the fish in the pond have grown in size, the pond did grow too, and there have been new fish and new ponds.” 116 Moreover, in recent years, deconsolidation has been more in vogue, with media operators shedding assets and restructuring their businesses. It is a very dynamic industry, and no operator possesses anything remotely resembling “market power.” More diversity than ever: No matter how one chooses to measure media “diversity,” all signs are that today’s marketplace is intensely competitive and offers citizens an unprecedented array of diverse media fare to meet even the most demanding tastes and particular interests. “Localism” is evolving, but still important: The relative decline in local media is a natural development resulting from the voluntary choices made by consumers. Simply stated, citizens now have more out-of-market informational inputs vying for their increasingly scarce attention spans. But many valuable sources of local information continue to exist. Citizens are better off, even if providers are struggling to cope: In sum, it’s clear that citizens have never had more information and entertainment options at their disposal. To the extent there was ever a “golden age” of media, we are living in it today. The media sky has never been brighter and it is getting brighter with each passing year—at least for the reader, viewer, or listener. But media providers are struggling to cope with these new marketplace realities. An age of abundance and user-empowerment is wonderful for the consumers of media, but is hell for the producers of it.

•

•

•

•

116

Eli M. Noam, “Media Concentration Trends in America: Just the Facts,” In the Matter of 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review – Review of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, January 2, 2003, p. 2, www.citi.columbia.edu/research/readings/mediaconcentration.pdf Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace 96